Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[hecd2]

Good point.

Given the number of years, the female is fertile plus the mating urge of the male, each set of parents would have had numerous children. This means that the 10,000 or 1,000 (breeding pairs) minimum human population would consist of family clusters of brothers and sisters.

Since a family of brothers and sisters are produced by two parents, there is a new population figure increased by seven (for example) humans per set of two parents. When one does the math, a smaller population of parents can produce a subsequent larger population.

Now, when one looks at the parents of the children who make up the 10,000 or 1,000 breeding pairs, the same principle of fertility and mating apply to the parents of the parents. And there is, again, a smaller population producing numerous children.

Thus, the concept that the minimum human population could only be 10,000 or 1,000 breeding pairs misses the mark. In other words, the mathematics of reproduction trumps.

Of course the mathematics of reproduction is that mammalian species often have stable population sizes that fluctuate about a mean for hundreds of generations. This happens because even though a fertile couple can and do have more than two offspring, a) not all live births survive to adulthood, b) of those that do, not all are fertile or succeed in reproducing for various reasons, c) occasional disastrous events such as floods, famine, accident and disease wipe out whole families or sub-populations.

If populations steadily increased they would reach astronomic proportions in not very many generations - on the whole, unless conditions become peculiarly favourable for a particular trade, the deaths of those who do not reproduce or who have only one or two offspring, offset the parents who have three to ten or more.

Your argument is, I think, that populations increase from generation to generation and thus if there was once 1,000 breeding pairs then there must have been fewer in the previous generation and fewer in the generation before that all the way back to two individuals. Your mistake is in thinking that populations in the wild necessarily increase from generation to generation - population statistics show that that argument is not correct and so it is perfectly possible from that perspective that the pre-human population was never as small as two individuals, and the evidence (see post below) precludes such an extreme bottleneck.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Did you read the fifteen or twenty I gave you six months ago ?[Regarding references to papers that demonstrate that no sever bottleneck has occurred in the ancestry of extant humans]

And did you read my reply after having my head put on a platter ?

Seriously, I now have access to at least one of the journals you cited and maybe some others. If you would be so kind as to re-post that list, when I get home I will check as to which I can obtain. I have read some miscellaneous stuff by following links. It is going to be like putting puzzle pieces together. I am totally convinced that there is more than genetics involved.

itinerant said something of the same kind and I am intrigued to know what is this relevant thing to palaeo-demography that is outside genetics.

Anyway, about the references. Here is the list again. Apologies to those who have seen it before, although I suspect that I have added a few papers since I last posted it. These papers describe analyses of many loci in various parts of the nuclear and mitochondrial genome which together are inconsistent with modern humans arising from two sole parents. These are, I think, the most telling of the references on this subject that I have collected in the last few years:

**The MHC complex**:

Ayala, The myth of Eve, Molecular biology and human origins, *Science *270, 1930 – 1936

Ayala and Escalate, The evolution of human populations: a molecular perspective. Mol Phylogenet Evol 5,188–201.

Ayala et al, Molecular genetics of speciation and human origins, PNAS 91, 6787 – 6794 (1994)

Bergstrom et al, Recent Origin of DRB1 alleles and implications for human evolution,* Nature Genetics* 18, 237 (1998),

Screuder et al in The HLA Dictionary*, Tissue Antigens* 65, 1 - 55

Gyllensten, Sundvall and Ehrlich, Allelic diversity is generated by intraexon sequence exchange at the DRB1 locus of primates, PNAS 88, 3686 – 3690 (1991)

Takahata and Satta, Footprints of intragenic recombination at HLA loci, *Immunogenetics *47, 430 – 431 (1998)

Beta-globin:
Harding et al, ‘Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans’, Am J Hum Genet 60, 772 - 789

Apolipoprotein C II:
Xiong et al, ‘No severe bottleneck during human evolution; evidence from two apolipoprotein C II alleles’, Am J Hum Genet 48, 383 -389
**
Nuclear genome**:
Rogers and Jorde, ‘Genetic evidence on the origin of modern humans’, Hum Biol 67, 1 - 36, show that a modest bottleneck of 10,000 individuals is consistent with the data.

Takahata et al, ‘Diversion time and population size in the lineage leading to modern humans’, Theor Popul Biol 48, 198 - 221

Zhao et al, Worldwide DNA sequence variation in a 10 kilo-base noncoding region on human chromosome 22, PNAS 97, 11354 – 11358 (2000)

mtDNA:
Takahata, ‘Allelic genealogy and human evolution’, Mol Biol Evol 10, 2 - 22;

Y-chromosome data:
Hammer, ’ A recent common ancestry for human Y-chromosomes’, *Nature *378, 376 - 378

Pritchard et al, Population growth of Human Y Chromosomes: A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites, Mol Biol Evol 16,1791 – 1798 (1999)

LD:
Tanesa et al, Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium, Genome Res 17, 520 – 526 (2007)

Hayes et al, Novel multilocus measures of linkage disequilibrium to estimate past effective population size, *Genome Res *13, 635 – 643 (2003)

X-chromosome:

Yu, Fu and Li, DNA polymorphism in a worldwide sample of human X-chromosomes, Mol Biol Evol 19, 2131 – 2141 (2002)

Microsatellites:

Zhivotsky et al, Features of evolution and expansion of modern humans, inferred from genomewide microsatellite markers, Am J Hum Gen 5, 1171 – 1176 (2003)
**
General studies**:

Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, The application of molecular genetic approaches to the study of human evolution, Nature Genetics 33, 266 – 275 (2003)

Jorde, Bamshad and Rogers, Using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers to reconstruct human evolution, Bioessays 20, 126 – 136 (1998)

Liu et al, A geographically explicit model of worldwide human settlement history, Am J Hum Gen 79, 230 – 237 (2006)

J D Wall, Estimating ancestral population sizes and divergence times, Genetics 163, 395 – 404 (2003)

Hawks et al, Population bottlenecks and Pleistocene human evolution, *Mol Bio Evol *17, 2 – 22 (2000)

Harpending et al, Genetic traces of ancient demography, PNAS 95, 1961 – 1967 (1998)

Takahata and Satta, Evolution of the primate lineage leading to modern humans: Phylogenetic and demographic inferences from DNA sequences, PNAS 94, 4811- 4815 (1997)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Hopefully, we are using our minds. This is also a Catholic thing. You have to be one to truly understand it. Reason says certain interpretations of the account of Adam conflict with the Bible itself and with how literature works. Not all interpretations are acceptable, especially when those interpretations conflict with each other. That is a no-brainer.

The genetics interpretation that posits a minimal human population of 1,000 to 10,000, or whatever is the best interpretation, does not address the question of what man is, when did hominisation first ocurr?, whether Homo sapiens immediate ancestors possessed such abilities as propositional speech, however rudimentary, and so on, and so on. There is much more to the picture, or rather, more pieces to the puzzle, than what is being discussed on CAF. To believe the issue is a matter of just recent genetic findings, bottlenecks, and what is meant my the story of Adam, excludes other important factors that need to be considered. The approach to the subject on this thread is the real bottleneck…or, the real not using of the mind.

Well, I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you because you obviously do read widely and think hard about things. I know that you hadn’t the full picture from the scientific side at the beginning of this thread, and that you are reading various people (including Ayala, I think) to colour in some of the pencil outlines that I’ve provided. Good. You also recognise that there is a discrepancy or an apparent discrepancy to resolve. I am intrigued to see how you propose to resolve it, and hope that you won’t mind me commenting on your proposals.

As TS has noted this is a case where a fundamental theological tenet (and a fundamental one at that) depends on a specific claim about reality that can be tested. The tests that have been carried out come down overwhelmingly against the claim. As far as I can see, the evidence forces either a re-appraisal of the theology and a revised exegesis of the literality of that part of Genesis (and I understand how big a pill that would be for Catholics to swallow), or an attempt to dismiss the science either as provisional or trumped by some sort of miracle. The latter retreat behind the stockade is also a bitter potion for thinking Catholics. I am interested in where your proposed resolution of the dilemma will fall.

By the way, I should point out that, whereas considerations such as when did Homo become fully human, and whether various precursors to extant humans had language, and so on, are extremely interesting, they are not really relevant to the question, since the evidence is that the lineage leading to modern humans, whatever its attributes at whatever stage, did not pass through a bottleneck of two individuals since the divergence of humans and chimps six million years ago and that the effective population leading to modern humans was 10,000 for the last million years and did not drop below 1000 in that time.

But you say we are excluding “other important factors that need to be considered” and I am interested to see what they are.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Does either the Bible or Catholic dogma dictate that God created only 2 humans, and that all the procreation descended from them? I sorta had it in my head that they were the first humans to be “created,” but not the only ones. Else, why would Cain be afraid that the rest of humanity would bring retribution against him for murdering his brother? He didn’t have any children until a later verse… Aren’t more humans (non-descendants from Adam & Eve) implied in Genesis by the fact that there were other lands named Nod and such, and other people which might kill Cain?

Also, the Bible doesn’t say that God created only two plants, only two cows, only two fish. Even under literal creationism, I thought everyone sort of assumed he “populated” the Earth with more than two of these creatures. Why wouldn’t the same apply to humans? Isn’t the 10,000 root theory compatible with Genesis?

Maybe I do have a misunderstanding about Original Sin, but I don’t think so. Is it necessary that it is “passed down” (inherited in a genetic sense), or are we free to believe that the committing of the sin changed humanity such that all humans are born with it, regardless of common descent with Adam & Eve? I think we are–I believe that we are free to believe that Original Sin is not “passed down” but rather a common characteristic of the human race, thus erasing the need for Adam & Eve to be the sole initial set of humans. It came into the world and affected all men, but it is not necessarily something inherited in the way we might talk about traits and genes…

From the Catechism:

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin ***came into the world ***through one man and death through sin, and so death ***spread to all men ***because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."29

---

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.

Through one man sin entered the world.

Please see Part 37 of Humani Generis:

damienhighschool.org/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

There are things science cannot demonstrate as true. A scientist standing next to Christ could not explain His miracles in natural terms.

All Catholics know, or should know, that in order to become a saint, today, two miracles need to be attributed to the intercessory prayer of that person.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SonofMonica]

Through one man sin entered the world.

Please see Part 37 of Humani Generis:

damienhighschool.org/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Yes, but saying that through one man sin entered the world is not the same as saying that sin is “passed down” like a hereditary trait. Quoting para. 37 here for ease of discussion:

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

So, why would he say this? Are you of the opinion that this is an infallible teaching on faith and morals? Why wouldn’t this be in the Catechism? Do you think maybe this is an attempt to make a scientific declaration or historic declaration? Because it’s hard to see how this truly affects the doctrine of Original Sin, as the doctrine is spelled out in the Catechism. Where are the sources of revealed truth and documents of the Magisterium to which he is referring that clearly establish that Original Sin is passed on like a gene or hereditary trait instead of being part of mankind? Likewise, where are the similar documents that denounce other “first” humans besides Adam and Eve (THE “first”)?

 

[edwest2]

To SonofMonica,

It’s in the Bible. You should know that the Church considers the Old Testament to be a sealed book. And what you read in the Bible is not written by the will of men but by the Spirit of God.

2nd Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Man was willed by God. He is not the result of a chance process. Science, as it is done today, cannot reach this conclusion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SonofMonica]

To SonofMonica,

It’s in the Bible. You should know that the Church considers the Old Testament to be a sealed book. And what you read in the Bible is not written by the will of men but by the Spirit of God.

2nd Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Man was willed by God. He is not the result of a chance process. Science, as it is done today, cannot reach this conclusion.

Peace,
Ed

Can you show me where in the Bible it says that Original Sin was passed down like a hereditary trait or gene? That’s really all I’m concerned with. I really don’t care if you believe evolutionary theory or not. In Charity – SonofMonica

 

[edwest2]

You already quoted Catechism 402. It’s right there. The Catechism brings clarity to contemporary readers so that they can be certain they are getting the correct meaning.

See Romans 5:12 and continue reading until 5:19.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SonofMonica]

You already quoted Catechism 402. It’s right there. The Catechism brings clarity to contemporary readers so that they can be certain they are getting the correct meaning.

See Romans 5:12 and continue reading until 5:19.

Peace,
Ed

I’m not quite sure about your reading comprehension, Ed. As for the Catechism, it specifically disavows knowledge of how Original Sin is transmitted. As for the Romans 5, it is impossible to conclude that Original Sin is transmitted at all. It’s right nowhere.

 

[itinerant1]

Well, I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you because you obviously do read widely and think hard about things. I know that you hadn’t the full picture from the scientific side at the beginning of this thread, and that you are reading various people (including Ayala, I think) to colour in some of the pencil outlines that I’ve provided. Good. You also recognise that there is a discrepancy or an apparent discrepancy to resolve. I am intrigued to see how you propose to resolve it, and hope that you won’t mind me commenting on your proposals.

As TS has noted this is a case where a fundamental theological tenet (and a fundamental one at that) depends on a specific claim about reality that can be tested. The tests that have been carried out come down overwhelmingly against the claim. As far as I can see, the evidence forces either a re-appraisal of the theology and a revised exegesis of the literality of that part of Genesis (and I understand how big a pill that would be for Catholics to swallow), or an attempt to dismiss the science either as provisional or trumped by some sort of miracle. The latter retreat behind the stockade is also a bitter potion for thinking Catholics. I am interested in where your proposed resolution of the dilemma will fall.

By the way, I should point out that, whereas considerations such as when did Homo become fully human, and whether various precursors to extant humans had language, and so on, are extremely interesting, they are not really relevant to the question, since the evidence is that the lineage leading to modern humans, whatever its attributes at whatever stage, did not pass through a bottleneck of two individuals since the divergence of humans and chimps six million years ago and that the effective population leading to modern humans was 10,000 for the last million years and did not drop below 1000 in that time.

But you say we are excluding “other important factors that need to be considered” and I am interested to see what they are.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thanks for the note. I just finished a book by Francisco Ayala. I was impressed with his clear reasoning and especially his attitude about the subject. I’m busy now trying to take in what I can regarding recent interpretations of the fossil record. As far as the current issue is concerned here on CAF regarding what you said genetics research discloses, I have to study up more on that so I won’t be proffering opinions without supporting evidence. Opinions without good supporting evidence aren’t worth anyone’s time.

And those other “important factors” I alluded to…I do not think, after all, I can articulate them with sufficient clarity at this time. Hence, it will be awhile before I say anything much on this topic. I have some homework to do on the subject first. That includes reviewing your posts. I appreciate the information you provided.

Until next time…All the best!

 

[Shredderbeam]

The question is since DNA has an active resistance to mutations and self corrects suggests it has remained pretty much the same since the beginning.

Does DNA have an active resistance to mutations, and does it self correct?

If it does, this might be an advantage, as mutations are usually harmful (or neutral). It wouldn’t prove that DNA could not have arisen and then evolved this protection.

DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation

…3.2 BEYOND THE REACH OF CHANCE
Perhaps the most common popular view about the origin of life is that it happened
exclusively by chance. A few serious scientists have also voiced support for this view, at
least, at various points during their careers. In 1954 the physicist George Wald, for
example, argued for the causal efficacy of chance in conjunction vast expanses of time.
As he explained, “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . Given so much time, the
impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain”
[48; 49, p. 121]. Later in 1968 Francis Crick would suggest that the origin of the genetic
code—i.e., the translation system—might be a “frozen accident” [50, 51]. Other theories
have invoked chance as an explanation for the origin of genetic information though often
in conjunction with pre-biotic natural selection. (see below 3.3)
While outside origin-of-life biology some may still invoke ‘chance’ as an explanation
for the origin of life, most serious origin-of-life researchers now reject it as an adequate
causal explanation for the origin of biological information [52; 44, pp. 89-93; 47, p. 7].
Since molecular biologists began to appreciate the sequence specificity of proteins and
nucleic acids in the 1950s and 1960s, many calculations have been made to determine the
probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids at random. Various
methods of calculating probabilities have been offered by Morowitz, Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe, Cairns-Smith, Prigogine, Yockey, and more recently, Robert Sauer [53,
pp. 5-12; 54, pp. 24-27; 55, pp. 91-96; 56; 30, pp. 246-58; 57; 34; 35; 36; 49, pp. 117-31].
For the sake of argument, these calculations have often assumed extremely favorable
prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not), much more time than was actually
available on the early earth, and theoretically maximal reaction rates among constituent
© by Stephen C. Meyer. All Rights Reserved.
15
monomers (i.e., the constituent parts of proteins, DNA and RNA). Such calculations have
invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced
biomacromolecules at random is, in Prigogine’s words, “vanishingly small . . .even on the
scale of . . .billions of years” [56]. As Cairns-Smith wrote in 1971:
Blind chance…is very limited. Low-levels of cooperation he [blind chance] can
produce exceedingly easily (the equivalent of letters and small words), but he
becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very
soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become
irrelevant. [55, p. 95]

Yes, the probability of going from nothing to today’s highly complex DNA in one giant leap is vanishingly small - but nobody is suggesting that that is what happened.

Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish

CHENGJIANG, China — The fish-like creature was hardly more than an inch long, but its discovery in the rocks of southern China was a big deal. The 530-million-year-old fossil, dubbed Haikouella, had the barest beginning of a spinal cord, making it the oldest animal ever found whose body shape resembled modern vertebrates.

In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, Jun-Yuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish “will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.”

“Neo-Darwinism is dead,” said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first fishlike impressions of Haikouella five years ago.

Today, paleontologists still lack viable ancestors for the Cambrian’s forty or more animal phyla. Most researchers explain this by assuming that Precambrian animals were simply too small or too soft to leave a fossil record, or that conditions were unfavorable to fossilization.

In fact, the pair had failed to find any recognizable body plans showing steps along the way toward the complex Cambrian animals with their legs, antennae, eyes and other features.

What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved.

“I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.”

Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”

Some animals might be prone to fossilization, and some might not. There also might be undiscovered fossils.

In what era were these sponges/sponge embryos discovered?

What does the scientific community at large have to say about their work and arguments? Do they have a strong following, or are they loose cannons?

 

[pzona]

The things that you’re reading today are written in 2009. They’ll be outdated next year.

We’ve reviewed the evidence and found it was lacking. Sounds like a good plan for today’s versions of the facts.

They more readily admit that their claims today are true, just as Mr. Boelsche did back then.

In fact, here’s more from his Evolution of Man, 1904, pg. 97-99 (others have seen this already, but it’s too good to reserve for just one prior thread). Let’s notice how insistent he is. This great evolutionary fact is “the most remarkable proof” of evolution yet. The fact that humans are born with gills and fins is “universally accepted” by evolutionists. In fact, “no man with the least respect for the truth can deny this fact”. “Every university book” contains this factual proof of evolution.

Where does that all sound familiar? … oh yeah, evolutionists say exactly the same thing today about their new claims. Then, next year, they’ll claim that we have “better knowledge now” as they refute their previous “facts” – hoping that the public will forget their ridiculous claims just the prior year.

should not the embryo of mammals, reptiles and birds show at least traces of a tadpole or fish stage in the mother’s womb, or in the egg? It is the most remarkable proof of the reliability of the biogenetic law that this is actually the case… The embryo of human being at a certain stage is likewise provided with traces of gills on its neck and with fin-like disks in the places where arms and legs develop later on. This is as universally accepted as the fact first stated by Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun. No man who has the least respect for truth can deny this fact. Nevertheless, there are people who find this very plain fact of embryology very little to their liking, and who therefore frequently attempt to brand it as a “falsification.” But every university text-book in the hands of every student of medicine, which is used as a basis for the state examinations, contains a statement of this simple fact, and if any student were to deny it during his examination he would be severely reprimanded by the state examiner. People who still refer to such undeniable and scientifically recognized facts as falsifications place themselves outside the pale of all moral premises and scientific research.

I’m really not too sure why, but you seem to think science has some sort of vendetta against religion. Science is about figuring out how things work, or why things happen. If there were irrefutable evidence against evolution, any self respecting scientist would have to admit his mistake in believing in evolution, and then start working on a new theory. No one hopes that everyone will forget about previous scientific claims. It’s not about pushing one specific idea on people, it’s about figuring out the truth.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is true because it’s the best explanation we have for how man came to be. It’s certainly an incomplete theory, just like any other area of science. Maybe if more creationists realized that science is about truth, whatever consequences the truth may bring, there wouldn’t be so much hostility between religion and science.

 

[StAnastasia]

The life and death of Jesus Christ is the reparation for the original sin of the real first parents of humanity.

That’s one helpful way of looking at it.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m really not too sure why, but you seem to think science has some sort of vendetta against religion. Science is about figuring out how things work, or why things happen. …Evolutionists claim that evolution is true because it’s the best explanation we have for how man came to be. It’s certainly an incomplete theory, just like any other area of science. Maybe if more creationists realized that science is about truth, whatever consequences the truth may bring, there wouldn’t be so much hostility between religion and science.

pzona, this is a wise post. I said in a public lecture yesterday that a large part of our difficulty in this respect stems from failure to have a common lexicon. Scientists often don’t understand what religious believers mean by “creation,” “incarnation,” “soteriology,” “eschatology,” “theodicy,” etc. Religious believers often don’t understand the difference between “fact,” “hypothesis,” “law,” or “theory” as those terms are used by scientists. Neither side seems to pay attention to what the other means by “truth.”

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

In what era were these sponges/sponge embryos discovered?

From the article:

But for the last three years, Chen’s discoveries at **Precambrian fossil sites **with Taiwanese biologist Chia-Wei Li have magnified this mystery. While sifting through the debris of a phosphate mining site, Chen and Li eventually discovered the earliest clear fossils of multi-cellular animals. They found sponges and tiny sponge embryos by the thousands — but nothing resembling the fish-like Haikouella or forerunners of other Cambrian creatures such as trilobites.

What does the scientific community at large have to say about their work and arguments?

No one has refuted these findings and there is nothing that shows any transitions from PreCambrian to Cambrian organisms. The scientific consensus is that the Cambrian body types appear abruptly, with no trace of ancestors. The statements in following paragraphs from the article remain true:

“I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.”

Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”

Do they have a strong following, or are they loose cannons?

They’re highly-regarded Chinese scientists (Chen is a noted professor) – although not as well-known in the West. This is a widely-known problem for evolutionary theory – but it is not publicized by those seeking to defend it at all costs.

There’s a new DVD just out this past week that covers the major problems that the Cambrian explosion presents to evolutionary theory.

Darwin’s Dilemma
winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/brian-auten-of-apologetics-315-provides-an-excellent-review-of-darwins-dilemma/

 

[liquidpele]

From the article:

But for the last three years, Chen’s discoveries at **Precambrian fossil sites **with Taiwanese biologist Chia-Wei Li have magnified this mystery. While sifting through the debris of a phosphate mining site, Chen and Li eventually discovered the earliest clear fossils of multi-cellular animals. They found sponges and tiny sponge embryos by the thousands — but nothing resembling the fish-like Haikouella or forerunners of other Cambrian creatures such as trilobites.

No one has refuted these findings and there is nothing that shows any transitions from PreCambrian to Cambrian organisms. The scientific consensus is that the Cambrian body types appear abruptly, with no trace of ancestors. The statements in following paragraphs from the article remain true:

“I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.”

Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”

They’re highly-regarded Chinese scientists (Chen is a noted professor) – although not as well-known in the West. This is a widely-known problem for evolutionary theory – but it is not publicized by those seeking to defend it at all costs.

There’s a new DVD just out this past week that covers the major problems that the Cambrian explosion presents to evolutionary theory.

Darwin’s Dilemma
winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/brian-auten-of-apologetics-315-provides-an-excellent-review-of-darwins-dilemma/

I’m so sick of this argument. ID proponents find one thing that’s “unexplained” and thus want to throw out the whole theory. Of *course *there are things that are unexplained or unproven… science is about discovery and figuring those things out! If we already knew it all, we wouldn’t even *need *science.

As far as ID, it’s not science, it never was, and it’s ideas have been thoroughly demolished time and time again. Every time a new unknown if found though, ID proponents jump on it like it’s some kind of miracle that undoes the fact that all the previous things didn’t work out for their theory. At what point will you give up? You never will, that’s the point, you reject all current evidence… the current evidence is never going to be good enough for you. Why? Because you treat ID like religion, an rightfully so. You want to believe ID fine, but don’t claim it’s supported by evidence or that evolution evidence is lacking.

 

[itinerant1]

I am intrigued to see how you propose to resolve it, and hope that you won’t mind me commenting on your proposals.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

Addendum to my initial reply to this post: I thought I would just add how I propose to “resolve” the discrepancy under discussion. I am tending to consider a bottleneck as highly improbable but not absolutely impossible. Furthermore, from a bottleneck in human history an effective population can be attained in a small number of generations. The issue of a bottleneck is one where I must invoke what I consider to be a healthy skepticism, one that takes into account the fact “solid” conclusions in science may be subject to revision or modification when warranted by the implications of previously unknown facts.

I offer this comment without argument merely as an indication of my current state of mind. However, feel free to respond to or object to anything I have said here in any way you see fit. Nonetheless, I am not, as I previously indicated, sufficiently knowledgeable or prepared to discuss this matter in detail at this time.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m so sick of this argument. ID proponents find one thing that’s “unexplained” and thus want to throw out the whole theory. Of *course *there are things that are unexplained or unproven… science is about discovery and figuring those things out! If we already knew it all, we wouldn’t even *need *science.

Liquidpele, I suspect that a lot of it stems from basic scientific ignorance. People have never studied at a post-secondary level, or never visited a laboratory, or never spoken to a working biologist. I have biologist friends who are Catholics – priests even – who share your being sick of the ID harangues. Hang in there; they are largely powerless outside of Internet fora where they gripe to the converted!

SAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

No one has refuted these findings and there is nothing that shows any transitions from PreCambrian to Cambrian organisms. The scientific consensus is that the Cambrian body types appear abruptly, with no trace of ancestors. rl]

I’m trying to track down the origin of this trope, and I keep getting very similar language from the Turkish creationist group, Harun Yahya. They think all Christians are going to hell, of course, but they are happy to share rhetoric with Christian Fundamentalists:

harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/cambrian/cambrian4.php

 

[StAnastasia]

Heretical too.

Not.